When I was a journalism student, my heart would race before every interview. I feared I wouldn’t get what I needed, or that an expert would think I was unintelligent or a bad journalist. As a result, I could be hesitant about steering the discussion, and the result was often that my sources were the ones driving the conversation. I wouldn’t get what I needed from my interviews and would be left to write around what I didn’t have.
But since then, I’ve learned that with the right approach, you can take charge of any interview and get what you need for a story, from basic facts and story logic to scenic details to juicy quotes.
Every journalist has their own approach to setting up their interviews for success. But the best interviewers share some common tactics to think and talk at the same time, get a rambling source back on track, find anecdotes that sing, and more.
Getting off on the Right Foot
Taking control of an interview starts well before the conversation itself. The first time you reach out to a source—often by email—helps build rapport and sets the tone and direction of a potential interview. Giving your source clear background information and expectations will help them feel comfortable letting you guide the interview.
Spoorthy Raman, a Canada-based freelance science and environmental journalist, provides a lot of context in her opening email, including who she is, her relation to the outlet she’s writing for (which may include explaining what a freelancer is), and a summary of the story she’s hoping to interview them for. Raman also sends a link to her Calendly, through which people can schedule a time for a call.
There’s a reason why small talk was invented: Chatting for a few moments about the weather or how they spent the weekend or the cat snoozing next to them can help start to build rapport.
In general, it may be best to take a cue from the interviewee on the level of formality they expect. For example, Isobel Whitcomb, an Oregon-based freelance science journalist, says that when interviewing an expert who has been in their field of study a long time, if they seem formal, “I feel like I have to be very deferential and maintain more of a sense of professionalism and decorum.” Otherwise, they may feel disrespected.
Once the interview is underway, it might be tempting to jump right into business, so you don’t waste the person’s time. But there’s a reason why small talk was invented: Chatting for a few moments about the weather or how they spent the weekend or the cat snoozing next to them can help start to build rapport. “People feel appreciated when you connect to them in such a way,” says Rosalia Omungo, a Kenya-based freelance science journalist and CEO of the Kenya Editors’ Guild.
When the small talk is done, you don’t need to immediately jump into asking questions. Raman, for example, says she normally begins by reiterating the information in her initial email, because there’s no guarantee the person read or remembers it. Some interviews require even more setup.
If your source is nervous, connecting on a personal level may help them feel safe opening up.
For instance, when Raman is interviewing a layperson about their personal experiences, she knows that it’s especially important to cultivate trust. Toward that end, she takes extra care to explain that she’s recording the interview to ensure the accuracy of quotes and assures them that the file won’t be publicly released. Lauren Vinopal, a freelance health and science journalist based in Chicago, does something similar, also emphasizing that sources don’t have to answer any questions that they don’t want to. Not only is that the ethical thing to do, she says, but it also tends to make them feel more comfortable.
If your source is nervous, connecting on a personal level may help them feel safe opening up. For example, when interviewing people with chronic pain, Whitcomb has shared their own experiences with debilitating pain. Doing so can open up a dialogue and help sources feel more understood. “I strategically self-disclose,” they say. “It’s something you have to be careful about because your source is not your friend … and you want to maintain professionalism. But it can help someone feel more comfortable and also [help them] reflect on their own experiences.”
Even still, a source may not be totally comfortable talking about their personal experiences, especially if they’re negative or traumatic in some way. They may be at risk of shutting down emotionally. If a source seems uncomfortable after being asked something heavy, Omungo will pivot and ask a more positive or hopeful question. “It’s just about being empathetic to the interviewee,” she says.
Nailing the Follow-Up
It’s a good idea to go into any interview with some questions ready to go. That will offer a bit of a framework, or maybe even a checklist of the information you must get from the conversation. But it isn’t a script, so don’t feel like you have to ask those questions in that order, as I used to think. I came to realize that it sounds robotic.
Instead, let the questions lead to natural follow-ups in which you ask your source to clarify or expand on a point. Those follow-ups can take many forms. They will be crucial if, say, your source didn’t fully answer the original question. In that case, it’s helpful to think about why that might be. It could be as simple as the source misunderstanding you, in which case simply rephrasing can help clear things up.
As helpful as it can be to dig into specifics with follow-up questions, sometimes the best strategy is actually a more generic follow-up.
Other times, a source may think they have fully answered your question when they really haven’t given enough detail. Or they may have answered you in a convoluted way, but you need a pithy quote. In these situations, Whitcomb summarizes their understanding of what the source has said and asks if it’s accurate. Doing this has a dual purpose: fact-checking, and drawing out more details.
This tactic may sometimes end with a simple “yes,” so it’s best for when you’re truly not sure you understood your source’s point. For example, when I interviewed philosopher Clancy Martin, author of How Not to Kill Yourself, about his mental health journey, he described his depression by paraphrasing someone else’s metaphor. I was a little confused by the point he was making, so I tried summarizing the idea, asking: “So it’s more like learning how to live with it rather than wishing it would go away?” This led him to use a Buddhist parable to describe how he handles depression, making his point in a creative and illustrative way.
Some people love to talk, and in their enthusiasm for the subject they will ramble about details that are irrelevant to your story.
As helpful as it can be to dig into specifics with follow-up questions, sometimes the best strategy is actually a more generic follow-up. Whitcomb at times urges their interviewee on with an enthusiastic non-question such as, “Interesting! Tell me more about that.”
It’s also important to ask a follow-up question when a source contradicts themself, says Tyghe Trimble, editor-in-chief of Inverse. “Look for logic that doesn’t track,” he adds. “If you see that a fact was never followed up on or they didn’t explain themselves, go there.” In an adversarial interview, this may be a sign that the source is hiding something. For instance, if a scientist skirts a question on their funding, it’s worth looking into conflicts of interest. In a typical interview, however, it’s more likely a sign that you’re misunderstanding a crucial point and need clarification.
Another time when you’ll want to ask a follow-up is when an expert source uses jargon—a constant danger when you’re interviewing scientists. Left unchecked, jargon can both limit your own understanding and leave you short on punchy, understandable quotes. Rather than trying to piece together what the source means, ask them to simplify it. Raman asks experts, “How would you explain that to, say, a high school student?” And if their answer is still too complicated, you can change that to “middle schooler.” Whitcomb adds that even if they understand the jargon, they frequently act as if they don’t, a strategy that tends to elicit a more accessible response. “In most situations, I feel very comfortable playing down what I know to get the source to speak to me in plainer language, and also to create a friendlier atmosphere,” they say.
Interrupting a Tangent
Some people love to talk, and in their enthusiasm for the subject they will ramble about details that are irrelevant to your story. If the source has a limited amount of time to speak with you or your own time is tight, you have to keep the conversation on track. That might even mean cutting a source off, but doing so doesn’t have to be as rude as it may sound. “I might say, ‘Hey, can I pause you right here? I’m really interested in what you’re saying right now. But I have so many questions,’” Whitcomb says. “There is a way to jump in and interrupt in a way that conveys enthusiasm, as opposed to conveying disinterest.” Other options include: “Sorry, I know your time is tight, so I want to make sure we have time to cover X,” or “Actually, that’s a great segue into something else I want to talk with you about.” Whatever interrupting tactics you use, this is a muscle that even some seasoned journalists have difficulty flexing, so don’t beat yourself up if you occasionally let a source go on for too long.
Thinking, Listening, and Taking Notes—All at Once
All of this—actively and sympathetically listening, thinking strategically about what to ask next and your source’s comfort level, and keeping in mind the material you need—takes a lot of mental space. Sometimes, it may mean that you forget crucial follow-up questions, or you have to take awkward pauses to collect yourself when your source is done speaking. Having a system that keeps you organized and in control during an interview is essential.
At some point, you may need to acknowledge that an interviewee simply isn’t giving you what you need, and isn’t going to.
Juggling all the aspects of an interview starts with knowing that you can trust your audio recorder. After a few technological mishaps early in my career, I spent a year or so trying to transcribe every interview as my source talked. Bad move. This left me little brainpower for thinking of follow-ups, or even which of my prepared questions made the most sense to ask next. It led to choppy interviews that didn’t set up my sources to logically expand on their thoughts from one question to the next.
Once I began trusting my recording device, I had more time to think. Instead of taking everything down verbatim, I jotted down only brief notes—the essentials in case my recording did fail—and particularly great quotes. This method left me more time to think about what prepared question made sense to ask next, to add follow-up questions to my list as the interview unfolded, and to more fully participate in the conversation.
Although most reporters, like me, type their questions beforehand and take notes on a computer during the interview, some find a lower-tech approach helpful. Raman prefers using pen and paper for both the prep and the actual conversation. She finds that manually writing out questions, both before and during her interviews, helps her better remember them. In video interviews, it also allows her to avoid flipping back and forth between screens and makes it easier to maintain eye contact with her source, demonstrating her interest in what they’re saying and helping with listening comprehension.
Determining When You Need More
At some point, you may need to acknowledge that an interviewee simply isn’t giving you what you need, and isn’t going to. If you have time, find another source who is better able to answer your questions. If you’re out of time, and if your editor is unable to give you more time after you explain the situation to them, you may have to make do with what you have. That might mean filling in context based on outside research, or (if your publication allows it) aggregating quotes from published articles, with appropriate attribution. If someone else will be fact-checking the story, you can also ask them to pose a couple of additional questions when they talk to the source in a last-ditch effort to elicit something more from the interviewee.
Remember, no two journalists have the same exact techniques for piloting an interview, and there’s no one way to go about it that’s always better than any other.
If you wrap up a conversation with a great source and then realize you missed something, you can send an email with some quick follow-up questions or even schedule a second, shorter interview. One trick I’ve learned: If the source is busy and doesn’t have time for a follow-up interview, sending them the questions and asking them to record themselves via a voice memo and send that to you can yield a longer, fuller, and more natural-sounding answer.
Remember, no two journalists have the same exact techniques for piloting an interview, and there’s no one way to go about it that’s always better than any other. But if you’re frequently not getting everything you need from your interviews, are having trouble getting sources to open up, or are running out of time for all your questions, these are all signs that your current style isn’t working for you. So try changing it up—the worst that can happen is the occasional awkward pause.
Tyler Santora is a freelance health and science journalist based out of Colorado. Previously, they were the health & science editor at Fatherly where they led coverage of men’s health and wellness, fitness, parenting, child development, and more. Tyler writes for publications such as Scientific American, Popular Science, Undark, Nature Medicine, Medscape, and Audubon Magazine and specializes in covering transgender health. Follow them on X @Tyler_Santora.